I've forked test-framework

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

I've forked test-framework

Bryan O'Sullivan
It doesn't build with GHC 7.8, and Max hasn't responded to pull requests or repeated comments from multiple people over a span of several weeks.


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I've forked test-framework

Greg Weber
I would like to reduce the amount of test framework fragmentation. A better path forward might be to use the newer more extensible and well maintained tasty package. I am imagining it is trivial to create a compatibility layer with the previous test-framework or to find and replace, but that might not be the case.

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I've forked test-framework

John Lato-2
According to http://packdeps.haskellers.com/reverse, test-framework has over 300 reverse dependencies (and tasty has 12).  Given that ghc-7.8 will be out relatively soon, why break all of them?


On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Greg Weber <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would like to reduce the amount of test framework fragmentation. A better path forward might be to use the newer more extensible and well maintained tasty package. I am imagining it is trivial to create a compatibility layer with the previous test-framework or to find and replace, but that might not be the case.

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries



_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I've forked test-framework

Bryan O'Sullivan
In reply to this post by Greg Weber
I don't really care about that goal, to be honest; in this case, I just want a minimal number of existing packages to break when GHC 7.8.1 is released.

On Tuesday, October 8, 2013, Greg Weber wrote:
I would like to reduce the amount of test framework fragmentation. A better path forward might be to use the newer more extensible and well maintained tasty package. I am imagining it is trivial to create a compatibility layer with the previous test-framework or to find and replace, but that might not be the case.

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I've forked test-framework

Greg Weber
sorry, I didn't understand what the original message was about. I was talking about a long-term direction


On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan <[hidden email]> wrote:
I don't really care about that goal, to be honest; in this case, I just want a minimal number of existing packages to break when GHC 7.8.1 is released.


On Tuesday, October 8, 2013, Greg Weber wrote:
I would like to reduce the amount of test framework fragmentation. A better path forward might be to use the newer more extensible and well maintained tasty package. I am imagining it is trivial to create a compatibility layer with the previous test-framework or to find and replace, but that might not be the case.


_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I've forked test-framework

Erik de Castro Lopo-34
In reply to this post by John Lato-2
John Lato wrote:

> According to http://packdeps.haskellers.com/reverse, test-framework has
> over 300 reverse dependencies (and tasty has 12).  Given that ghc-7.8 will
> be out relatively soon, why break all of them?

I agree. Would it not make more sense to start maintaining test-framework
as part of the haskell-pkg-janitors group [0] on github and uploading a new
fixed version ASAP?

Erik

[0] https://github.com/haskell-pkg-janitors
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/
_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I've forked test-framework

John Lato-2
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo <[hidden email]> wrote:
John Lato wrote:

> According to http://packdeps.haskellers.com/reverse, test-framework has
> over 300 reverse dependencies (and tasty has 12).  Given that ghc-7.8 will
> be out relatively soon, why break all of them?

I agree. Would it not make more sense to start maintaining test-framework
as part of the haskell-pkg-janitors group [0] on github and uploading a new
fixed version ASAP?

Bryan already uploaded a new version (3 versions, actually), which I presume he tested with ghc-HEAD.  The maintainer is listed as libraries@.  I agree that haskell-pkg-janitors would be more appropriate, but I'm not really sure what the protocol is at this point.

Are there any objections to moving test-framework to haskell-pkg-janitors?
 

[0] https://github.com/haskell-pkg-janitors

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I've forked test-framework

Roman Cheplyaka-2
In reply to this post by Greg Weber
(Disclosure: I'm the author of tasty.)

If there are people who are willing to keep test-framework on life
support, it's definitely useful. Let's keep those revdeps from breaking.

However, if someone is considering adding new features, I'd encourage
them to look at tasty instead. It has a cleaner and smaller code base
and is more extensible, but otherwise is very similar in spirit to
test-framework.

Roman

* Greg Weber <[hidden email]> [2013-10-08 20:03:36-0700]

> sorry, I didn't understand what the original message was about. I was
> talking about a long-term direction
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I don't really care about that goal, to be honest; in this case, I just
> > want a minimal number of existing packages to break when GHC 7.8.1 is
> > released.
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 8, 2013, Greg Weber wrote:
> >
> >> I would like to reduce the amount of test framework fragmentation. A
> >> better path forward might be to use the newer more extensible and well
> >> maintained tasty package. I am imagining it is trivial to create a
> >> compatibility layer with the previous test-framework or to find and
> >> replace, but that might not be the case.
> >>
> >

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I've forked test-framework

Gregory Collins-3

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Roman Cheplyaka <[hidden email]> wrote:
However, if someone is considering adding new features, I'd encourage
them to look at tasty instead. It has a cleaner and smaller code base
and is more extensible, but otherwise is very similar in spirit to
test-framework.

Why don't you try to make this work as api-compatible with the old test-framework as possible and release it as test-framework-1.0.0.0?

G
--
Gregory Collins <[hidden email]>

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I've forked test-framework

Roman Cheplyaka-2
* Gregory Collins <[hidden email]> [2013-10-09 08:16:06-0700]

> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Roman Cheplyaka <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > However, if someone is considering adding new features, I'd encourage
> > them to look at tasty instead. It has a cleaner and smaller code base
> > and is more extensible, but otherwise is very similar in spirit to
> > test-framework.
> >
>
> Why don't you try to make this work as api-compatible with the old
> test-framework as possible and release it as test-framework-1.0.0.0?
Why would I do that? Tasty is now a separate package, with its own API
and its own users. Why would I break it?

People who continue to use test-framework are presumably happy with it,
so maintenance releases by Bryan or haskell-pkg-janitors should be
enough for them. If they ever feel that tasty is better for them, it
won't take much effort to switch.

Roman

_______________________________________________
Libraries mailing list
[hidden email]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment